Thread: 2 Democrats Say Congress Must be Cautious w/Fairness Doct.

Congress Must Be Cautious With Fairness Doctrine, Two Democrats Say

Thursday, November 06, 2008
By Nicholas Ballasy


(CNSNews.com) - The government “has the responsibilityâ€

[quote]“On the other hand, the government, we all have the responsibility to make sure that there’s a variety of opportunities for people to get information,â€

A good book on the subject,

The Creation Of The Media, Political Orgins of Modern Communications by Paul Starr

So the liberal stations will have to be 50 50 too right? So if all of the other liberal stations which outnumber conservative 4 to 1 change that would be fair right? And isn't the censorship of free speech in any context unconstitutional anyway?

added to homepage

http://www.alipac.us/article3704.html

4thHorseman wrote,

If anyone needs proof of the collusion between the mainstream media providers that denies the public a true 'fair and balanced' presentation of the news, not to mention a complete one, one only need look at the 2008 campaign and election coverage. How many times was illegal immigration even mentioned, let alone debated? Why wasn't Obama's past and relationships fully explored? Why wasn't the financial system meltdown analyzed by the media, and the responsibilities for it identified? (60 Minutes did a report on it, but only the Credit Default Swap portion, and that was not done well. Sub-prime mortgages were not mentioned in the report, nor were any major politicians' names)

I suppose that would depend on which side of the fence you were on. The sooner the Dems(?) (I have another word for dems) can tear down the fence, the sooner they will not have to recognize that there is such a thing as a conservitive point of view. One big happy family. Now would that not be better for America?

Roundabout said

I suppose that would depend on which side of the fence you were on. The sooner the Dems(?) (I have another word for dems) can tear down the fence, the sooner they will not have to recognize that there is such a thing as a conservitive point of view. One big happy family. Now would that not be better for America?

Of course. Problem is, this is really not about Conservatism vs. Liberalism. It's about power. Control of information is power. If all conservatives vanished from the face of the earth today, tomorrow there would be a power struggle between whoever remained. And control of information would be part of that power struggle. In the early years after WW II you could make a case that Conservatives tried to do the same thing, especially during the McCarthy years. Was it really about ideology? I don't think so. I think it was political power, and some people will say anything, support any cause, make any sacrifice (of someone else's money, property or life) to gain and hold that power.

Roundabout said,

I suppose that would depend on which side of the fence you were on. The sooner the Dems(?) (I have another word for dems) can tear down the fence, the sooner they will not have to recognize that there is such a thing as a conservitive point of view. One big happy family. Now would that not be better for America?

My question, "Now would that not be better for America? I was being sacastic. Sorry for any confusion. Dry, sarcastic English humor.

4thHorseman wrote,

Of course. Problem is, this is really not about Conservatism vs. Liberalism. It's about power. Control of information is power. If all conservatives vanished from the face of the earth today, tomorrow there would be a power struggle between whoever remained. And control of information would be part of that power struggle. In the early years after WW II you could make a case that Conservatives tried to do the same thing, especially during the McCarthy years. Was it really about ideology? I don't think so. I think it was political power, and some people will say anything, support any cause, make any sacrifice (of someone else's money, property or life) to gain and hold that power.

I think we both agree that we need to try to recognize the 'who' in the equation of power concerning information and it's dissemination. The politics in the term "political power" could take on many different faces. Therefore, I believe that ideologys are gaining in the marketplace of ideas and information due to the evolutionary reinforcements of time and time again. Said loud enough, and long enough, it becomes fact. What was said in the expediency, and desire of power takes on the true nature of itself and could be very dangerous.

No you marxist needs to stay out of our lifes!

, but quite frankly, there is more variety today than we’ve had in recent years



That's right, there is. A HUGE variety. Isn't that why the Fairness Doctrine was put to rest in the first place......because it no longer applied?



Therefore, maybe we should start gathering up and compiling a volume of the liberal leaning information sources? Even the conservative leaning ones for that matter.

This way we will be fully prepared to SHOW......in plain black and white.....that there are plenty of sources by which anyone can receive their information making it absolutely unnecessary for the FD to be revived.

And, if they persist in this, then we will have at least what is needed to prove that this is just an attempt to silence those who do not agree with them and even litigate if necessary.